Category:Queer Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCFD|DRV)

Deletion policies not followed, consensus not documented as required by Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews. Hyacinth (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 8 for previous. Hyacinth (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, not to be a process wonk, but we can't really review a closing of a deletion review here... it's like a divide by zero error, we'd just get the same discussion anyway. I think you need to move up the dispute resolution process at this point... most likely to WP:RFC. --W.marsh 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should just recreate the category - the original deletion was wrongly carried out, and the review was improperly closed. RFC likely to drag on and on with no clear outcome, system seems excessively beaurocratic so WP:IAR should be invoked. DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd just get dumped as a CSD. ^Avruchtalk 01:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a deletion review review review? Endorse deletion. - ∅ (∅), 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure. I think that we have the correct result here, but that aside, I urge withdrawal of this review as unlikely to succeed and unlikely to produce any helpful commentary. The issue has been gone over enough times that once more in close succession is unlikely to produce anything new, and the unusual process position of this review is likely to produce calls for closure for that reason even from those who might be neutral on the underlying issue. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment sounds like classic wikipedia is not a bureacracy - "A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post". If where getting down to this sort of argument we really are scraping the bottom of the barrel. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia is the most bureaucratic organization I have ever encountered (I used to be a civil servant). DuncanHill (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry you feel that way, but a soultion to that is not to actively encourage such bureacracy. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Which means what exactly? DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why is this DRV page showing up in this category? The nomination specifically has the category name colon'ed out. Corvus cornix_talk 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the extra links, changing that to the extra colon fixes it at the expense of breaking the talk link. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. –Pomte 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Eluchil404. --Kbdank71 18:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What an incredibly technical and legalistic grounds for "appealing" a review. Endorse, as this is no reasonable reason to revisit the issue. --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this all relates to a much larger issue regarding user categories, and I believe this discussion should be closed so that the appropriate meta-level discussion can take place. Discussing this single case is unproductive because the treatment of this (and similar) categories just serves to highlight the double standards and outrage those being steamrollered. The problems regarding (alleged) misuse of process will go away once a clear, consensus-based policy is enacted, and this should be the focus of the discussion. FWIW, on the issue at hand, I cannot see any vaguely remotely potentially justifiable rationale for a category like Christian Wikipedians to be acceptable but Queer Wikipedians to be unacceptable - the implicit prejudice is screamingly obvious. Equally, if the Queer category should be Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues in order to be inclusive of non-queer-identifying users, then Christian Wikipedians should be changed to Wikipedians interested in Christianity. Jay*Jay (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is a much bigger issue regarding user categories -- and I'll put it into specifics: that the idea of "categories must explicitly foster collaboration" and WP:NOT#SOCIAL have become distorted into euphemisms for "I don't like it" and "it's just not encyclopaedic" and similar unworthy arguments; their interpretation in UCfD is so broad that nearly any user category can be construed to fall under one or the other. (Which, incidentally, has the unpleasant side effect of providing an excellent Wikipedia-policy cloak for bias.) Personally, if this problem cannot be solved in some way, I think it would be best to either eliminate user categories altogether or make them dramatically more difficult to create (for example, by requiring a call-for-creation discussion) and/or delete (for example, by requiring two or three nominators rather than just one). If there is bias against LGBT people in the deletion process, I think it is very likely to be on the part of nominators; the more general bias in UCfD appears to be against any "Wikipedians" category at all that is nominated. --7Kim (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with most of what you have said, but would be very cautious about if there is bias against LGBT people in the deletion process, I think it is very likely to be on the part of nominators. I have had an interaction over at WP:AN with Avruch who nominated one of these types of categories for deletion - a deletion nominatoin action which almost caused us to lose William P. Coleman. On the basis of that interaction, I believe that Avruch's action was motivated primarily by process, and not bias - and thus, in his case, I think your supposition is unjustified. Go and have a read for yourself if you aren't familiar with the interaction to which I refer (it's near the top of WP:AN at the moment, under 'A brief note to let you know why I'm signing off WP'). Jay*Jay (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain "Queer Wikipedians" category. Speaking as a gay Wikipedian, I'd like to explain why this is important to some of us:
  • It might seem this is parallel to, e.g. "Black Wikipedians," and in some ways it is. There's one crucial way it isn't: namely forced anonymity is fundamental to how LGBTs are discriminated against. The negative stereotypes against LGBTs couldn't exist if LGBTs were only visible -- if people saw us going about our daily business, contributing to society. Society is happy to take from us, but expects us to be anonymous so they can later pretend we're a fringe agenda group. You may feel that, in practice, no Wikopedian is going to discriminate against an LGBT so those prejudices are irrelevant here. -- But, if you deny us the ability to identify ourselves, you're asking us to acquiesce in the same ripoff: we participate but then we're invisible and therefore vulnerable.
  • This coercion to anonymity is something LGBTs are personally hurt by all our lives. My black friends didn't have to worry as teenagers that their parents would find out they're black and wouldn't understand. LGBTs are taught young to hide -- and that the reason is that their emotions is supposed to be shameful. As teens, we struggle alone. The result, in many, is deep anger when we're told to cover up. Wikipedia can't expect us to be willing, cooperative partners if it callously ignores something that understandably ignites deep, ingrained anger -- something LGBTs associate with being indoctrinated that we're worthless and disgusting.
  • I, for example, am used to being out of the closet. I'm out to the federal government committee I serve on -- and also to my business clients. (I'm sure that being out gains me some clients and costs me others. I don't care either way.) The issue never comes up: my colleagues and clients know I'm gay -- but our discussions are about medical research, not about my personal life. I expect the same on Wikipedia. Yes, I'd like to contribute to the LGBT Wikiproject -- but I also want to contribute in the Novels and Poetry Wikiprojects, and there's no reason my gayness is a factor or a topic there.
  • It's not the same for us just to be "interested in LGBT issues" or "members of the LGBT Wikiproject" or any prevarication meaning we might not really, personally, actually be LGBT. It's being forced into anonymity that we hate. If heterosexuals want a category that allows them to similarly label themselves, then we have no objection at all -- but straights don't generally feel a need for one: because no one tells them heterosexuality is shameful and they have to hide. Many LGBTs need some category that labels us unambiguously. Once we have it, most of us will go about our business without mentioning it much. But, if we're to collaborate here, we need to know we're acceptable for what we are -- rather than being told the opposite. William P. Coleman (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion review isn't AFD part 2, it isn't for rearguing the deletion debate, it's more concerned as to if the process was followed correctly. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is what the original posting here is trying to do - yet the "endorse delete" !votes above all avoid the point, ot even suggest it is wrong to point out an abuse of process. The original deletion was clearly outside process & not supported by the original debate, yet there appears to be absolutely no way on Wikipedia of correcting this. A bad decision was made - and there seems to be a concerted effort to prevent that being rectified. Wikipedia is so massively bureaucratic and driven by obscure policies and procedures which play directly into the hands of "wikilawyers" that it appears impossible to get any kind of clarity in this debate. When this thread was put on CfD (where reasons for keeping or deleting are appropriate) the response was "go to DRV". Now on DRV we get "don't use that type of reasoning here - look at process only" or "so what if the process wasn't followed". DuncanHill (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree, the nomination here is suggesting a minor procedural issue in the last DRV should invalidate it, that would be truely bureaucratic. If you went to CFD to have the DRV reviewed, I'm not suprised it was turned away, in fact I'm quite suprised this is even still listed here. Generally we don't allow continued DRVs/XFDs etc. from the "losing" party, in a hope that if they do it often enough they might get the result they want, that is merely gaming the system. There have been a few CFDs on these sort of categories recently with broadly the same results, the consensus of the community seems pretty clear. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • 81.104.39.63, would you be willing to tell us who you are? I ask because it's obvious from your contributions since the start of 2008 - mostly to places like WP:AN, WP:AN/I and to the IRC ArbCom that you are very familiar with WP policy and have been (or still are) around by another name. You also appear to have strong feelings about this issue. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above special means of course CfD. And I agree that this DR is for AfD/CfD and so this is out-of-process and should just be closed and we can move on to recreate and rerun CfD if tagged, but hopefully no nom this time. Time to close! Wjhonson (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of what William says above is all fair enough but it is not a strong argument for overturning this deletion (a deletion to which I'm largely indifferent). In short, Wikipedians have userpages that can be used for self-identification. It is hard to see how the lack of Category:Queer Wikipedians is forcing, for example, this user into anonymity or denying him the ability to identify himself. There are plenty of opportunities for people to identify themselves on this website (userpage, signature, Wikiproject participation, and so on), and these measly categories are simply not the kind of panacea to closeting, discrimination and/or bigotry that they're being made out to be. – Steel 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• From an emotional standpoint, my recommendation is retain the category; from a Wikipedia standpoint my recommendation is confirm the delete. Process happened, consensus was formed, we live with it and we must work to change consensus -- and continuing the struggle in this way is only going to harden the current consensus. Taking losses and working to create a new consensus is the Wikipedia way, and I see absolutely no reason why we LGBT people should be held to a different, lower standard. I'm truly getting sick of this debate, because I see no potential good resolution to it.

• If we affirm the delete (as I think we should; there are no good arguments for overturning it other than vague claims of bias that I see no real evidence for), then a small number of editors will go on struggling for their cause by entering a forum that's supposed to be for reasoned debate and flooding it with arguments rooted outside the terms of debate. (Frankly, seeing that behaviour in my fellow LGBT people leaves me feeling ashamed to be transgender.)
• If, on the other hand, we overturn the delete and restore the categories we are rewarding tantrum behaviour, which bodes ill for the future (ask any parent), plus we can rest assured that the categories will be nominated again as soon as Wikipedianly possible and we will have to go through the whole damned thing all over again ... and again ... and again ... until the category finally gets salted.

In essence, this has become one of those arguments that is no longer about the facts of the matter or the interests of Wikipedia, but about who triumphs and who gets humiliated. It's come to be about who is RIGHT; it's come to be an irresolvable power struggle, and Wikipedia is ill-equipped to handle such a thing. May I suggest, if there is a way to do it, that whatever the outcome of this review, the category becomes protected (from renomination or recreation, as the case may be) for a period of time -- say, three months? --7Kim (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Am I the one you're describing, without naming, as throwing a tantrum? Looked at objectively, most of your comments here amount to name-calling and insult. But I suppose that if I object to your characterization of me, it would only count as further evidence of my emotional immaturity.
  • As far as the substance of your comments is concerned, what you say (process was followed, consensus was reached) seems to be diametrically opposite to what DuncanHill just posted (process wasn't followed, decision didn't reflect consensus). Which of these is correct? I personally didn't think there was "consensus," against the category. As far as whether process was followed, I wouldn't know. I'm not a Wikilawyer, just a newbie wondering what's the proper forum to register a complaint. Apparently, you think that's a crime against Wikipedia and that, not only should I be insulted for my general classification (as a gay), but also specifically as an individual person (I throw emotional tantrums and am not adult enough to follow process). William P. Coleman (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sir, if I referred to a particular person I would have given a name. I may be a coward in other ways, but not that. (If you want to accuse me of insulting you personally, I'll quote Dune to you: "My son displays a general garment and you claim it's cut to your fit? What a fascinating admission.") A tantrum is a response to a losing position in an argument in which the person in the losing position refuses to let go of the argument and attempts to win it by changing to an emotional stance and escalating conflict on those terms. That behaviour is all over the place on the LGBT side in this debate (there is no need to name particular individuals), and it not only has no place in UCfD or a deletion review, it is deeply counterproductive to the aims that you and I share, and damaging to the interests of Wikipedia.
    • If an admin closed the debate, then AFAICT process was followed. If the admin was clearly in error, then there must be some specific arguments to be offered on where the error lay; I haven't seen such arguments. I refer you to the fact that discussions in UCfD are not votes, and the admin who closes the debate is assessing consensus on the basis of strong and specific reasoned arguments and establishing it. I have read the argument you mention and frankly do not see anything more than an assertion that the deletion was "clearly outside process & not supported by the original debate", without even the ghost of specificity on what part of the process was not followed or in what way the decision was not supported. I'm willing to bow to specific arguments on that score, if they're presented.
    • I want to say very clearly that I'm not out to keep Category:Queer Wikipedians deleted; I'm out to see that its restoration is unchallengeable. It won't be a victory if we just have to fight the same fight over again next week. --7Kim (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 7Kim, I am completely in agreement with you on goals - the Category:Queer Wikipedians needs to be unchallengeable, or else categories like Category:American Wikipedians and Category:Christian Wikipedians need to be deleted. Anything else would be an entrenched bias.
      • As you have seen from above, I think there is a much broader meta-level issue here, and it would be much better to have that addressed, and suspend this discussion pending resolution of the major issue. Arguing on a case-by-case basis is not a sensible way forward. Also, whilst I have enormous sympathy for the argument that William P. Coleman is making about visibility, and whilst I think that Steel's response suggests a lack of genuine understanding of the issues around the LGBT experience to which William is referring, this process forum is not the place.
      • However, I disagree strongly that there are not issues of policy and/or process raised here. Please bear in mind that I'm pretty new to WP, so I may not have a good understanding of the nuances of how policy is generally applied; equally, as a newbie, I have been doing some reading and I think there are process issues to address. The following is not meant as wikilawyering, and I'm happy to be corrected if there are things I have misunderstood.
        1. According to WP:CON, the policy on consensus (emphasis mine): Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical. In situations with a deadline, a perfect compromise may not have been reached by all participants at the deadline. Nevertheless, a course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons (rather than merely the majority). Running roughshod over the (then) minority is the best way to get yourself into almost unlimited amounts of trouble. Besides, next time someone from that minority might be the final closer, and you might be one of the people in a minority, so it's a good idea to be a gentleperson at all times and set a good example. As far as I can see, these deletion discussions have not followed this at all - the minority opinions have not been addressed, they have been steamrollered. As such, I think it is inappropriate for an admin to close a discussion declaring (sometimes without explanation) a consensus without attempting to facilitate the sort of discussion which policy requires. There is serious doubt as to the existence of consensus as defined in WP:CON.
        2. Having not followed policy in this area, the closing admin Chick Bowen declined to discuss the issue when it was raised here, basically stating "I've been closing DRVs for a long time" - which suggests an inflexibility towards reflecting on a possible error and an attitude of superiority which is objectionable in an admin. After all, being an admin is supposed to be no big deal, and reflection is an essential part of good judgement. This is an appropriate forum for considering whether to overturn actions where the appropriate implementation of policy is in question.
        3. The best guide I can find on what user categories are for is Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories, where it states that Before creating or deleting a Wikipedian category, ask yourself the following question: "Would this category help an editor find others who can assist him or her in a Wikipeida task as help review similar topics?" If the answer to this question is "No", the category probably does not need to exist. On LGBT issues, it is obvious that a Category:Queer Wikipedians would be helpful in locating editors to assist. The couner to this is typically that there is a WikiProject that could also help, but that argument is flawed - the question is not "is this category the only possible way to locate such editors" but rather "would this category help an editor to find others". Incidentally, this also highlights the flaw in the closing reasoning ("The argument that the category in question could be used for collaboration is not relevant.") provided by Chick Bowen here. It also addresses Steel's comment about AllStarEcho's visibility - his user and talk page are not necessarily esaily found, and as such do not really constitute a suitable way for an uninvolved or new editor to try to locate a collaborator with knowledge of LGBT issues.
        4. Continuing on from Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories, acceptable categories include (emphasis in original) Categories relating to an editor's areas of expertise - Including occupation, education, skills, known languages, and experience. These categories are helpful because they show that the editor already has some "real life" knowledge on certain topics, and other editors may need that expertise to help them edit other articles on Wikipedia. Category:Queer Wikipedians falls squarely into this case, as LGBT editors have "real life" knowledge on LGBT issues, and experience with issues like homophobia, which most other editors lack. Exactly the same argument can be made in defence of category:Christian Wikipedians, and the policys protect both, or neither. I submit that, as such, the original CfD should have been declined as inconsistent with the policy in which the goals of categories and the acceptable categories are described. This also highlights the flaw in the reasoning that the category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues is sufficient - there are different "real life" experiences in coming out, for example, and perspectives of LGBT editors and straight editors interested in LGBT issues are not the same. Note, this is not, as might be argued, a violation of WP:NPOV, as covering significant differing perspectives is sometimes essential for an NPOV article on a topic.
        5. I realise that Wikipedia:Guidelines for user categories is technically inactive, but dismissing the above comments on this basis would be bureaucratic. The "nutshell" summary of this user category page is User categories should have practical value to the Wikipedia project by helping Wikipedians find other editors who may assist them with their work, which seems to be the argument Chick Bowen is using to endorse the deletion, yet the contradiction in the argument is manifest - in implementing a consensus that categories must have value for the encyclopedia, Chick Bowen is disregarding the WP description of what constitutes such categproes. The deletion and the subsequent endorsements are majorly flawed and should be overturned. Not because they appear to reflect an anti-Queer bias (although they do). Not because it would be a meaningful gesture in reaffirmation of the policy regarding the importance of valuing editors and treating them equally (although it would). Not because it would signal that homophobia is unacceptable on WP (as should be the case, as surely phobic positions make NPOV editing difficult). Not because these actions and discussions are disrupting us from the task of editing an encylopedia (although they are - and on this basis alone, WP:IAR would apply and mandate the restoration of category:Queer Wikipedians). Not because the present approach is discouraging involvement in the project (although it is, as William P. Coleman's AN post demonstrates - another reason to invoke WP:IAR). Not because it is the right thing to do (although it is). Not even because it might encourage other admin's to act in the spirit of the principles underlying policy, rather than on letter-of-the-law bureacratic reasoning (although it might). No, as I have demonstrated, the decision should be overturned because it was a policy violation. This is one place where process allows such errors to be corrected. This should now be done. Jay*Jay (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note - since writing the above, I've been referred to the more-widely used Wikipedia:Userboxes#User categories. As far as I can see, nothing I have said above is any way contradicted by this view of user categories. I think it is unfortunate that it is so brief, because it leaves holes large enough for a small US aircraft carrier group to sail through. However, it does say User categories (categories of Wikipedians) are intended for grouping Wikipedians in order to aid in facilitating collaboration on the encyclopedia. This does not say the evidence of its use for collaboration is required, only that it should aid in facilitating collaboration - which a category:Queer Wikipedians clearly can do. This also shows (again) that Chick Bowen's statement "The argument that the category in question could be used for collaboration is not relevant" here is wrong, as "could be used for collaboration" and "aid in facilitating collaboration" are essentially identical in connotation. The rationale for the endorsement decision was inconsistent with guidelines on the subject, and should be overturned. The failure to apply policy means the original deletion was in error, and should be reversed. Jay*Jay (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• William P. Coleman: We're not here to overcome stereotypes or make social statements. We're here to build an encyclopedia (which I suggest that you do, though I'd understand if you don't wish to). User categories serve a different purpose than user pages; they're for seeking editors with whom to collaborate on articles, not for self-identification. You may observe that other self-identification categories exist, and those should be deleted, which some of us have been progressively doing. This is not an LGBT issue. You are accepted. You're not considered worthless due to there being no blue link at the bottom of your user page connecting you to other LGBT Wikipedians, even though it would serve no purpose other than a psychological one. You don't need a category in order to contribute. Please note that I'm not telling you what to do here, but merely stating that you really don't need it. Now someone's going to come along and say that editors matter, which is certainly true, but use it to argue that we should have the category just so you contribute. I hope you can understand that you matter without this sort of argument. –Pomte 01:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please read - This is a DR *on* a previous DR. It's out-of-process. Just re-create the category and let it get another CfD going, this is pointless because guess what. It's not going to make anything happen. So re-create and re-run. Wjhonson (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The disadvantage of recreation is that the category is eligible for G4 deletion since it was deleted as the result of a CfD debate. Thus recreation is just as "out of process" as this DRV. The better course, IMHO, is to wait a while before doing anything, to let tempers cool and to see if consensus really has changed (or is more clear) rather than just making what seems to largely be an argumentum ad nauseum. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The commentors contend and I agree that the CfD was closed wrongly against no consensus. The DR was closed again against consensus of bad process. This review however will accomplish nothing. We don't reopen reviews based on consensus of badly closed reviews, which would create a infinite-depth recursion. Rather we should recreate or RfC. RfC is probably fairly pointless because the underlying issue is so insignificant; and G4 should not be applied in cases where there is evidence of process corruption.Wjhonson (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reconsider It is appropriate to ask a decision making body to reconsider its action, and this would be the place to do it. I think there is clearly no longer an overall consensus about these categories in general, and the policy should be revisited. for this particular one, there was no consensus at the Cfd. Nor was the Deletion review closed correctly, there was no consensus there and the closer substituted his own argument for the community's, holding that a very general statement was controlling. No closer has the right to do that on his own, unless there is consensus to that effect--only to determine what is the consensus, after removing irrelevant arguments. He should have joined the Discussion, not closed it. DGG (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suggest a creator, *not I*, who has a firm grasp of the history, should recreate the cat, additionally immediately adding a tag to an RfC detailing the history of contention with a fair summary of the previous CfD and Review. Doing that, imho, would pause any G4 admin to review the situation and conclude it's complexity. We would then have opportunity to comment and reach consensus impartially. Who wants it?Wjhonson (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Looking through all the various debates, the over-riding principle seems to be that such categories do not help collaboration, and that it is consensus that only categories which aid collaboration are allowed. But it is for the community to decide what aids collaboration, and to form that consensus. I ask the community to decide, reviewing all the discussions previously held, whether there is any consensus that this category does not aid collaboration and that it should therefore be deleted, and I also ask the community to consider the fact that Consensus Can Change. How do we prove that consensus can change without revisiting issues and discussing again and once again posing the same question. Wikipedia does not have binding decisions. We should not act like it does. The category should be re-listed so that the merits of it can be re-examined to discover if consensus has changed. That's fundamental to the workings and policies of Wikipedia. It underpins Wikipedia. It is what creates Wikipedia. Hiding T 20:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't know what was the content, but I think the subject is sufficiently notable. There was significant news coverage about his death: [1]. Korg (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion with no prejudice against recreation The entire contents of the article was: "Carlos, frequently call Jean-Christophe Doltovitch , real name Yvan-Chrysostome Dolto, is a french singer birth at Paris the 20th February 1943 and died at Paris the 17th January 2008. (== Biography ==) He is the son of the psychoanalyst Françoise Dolto and Kinesiotherapist Boris Dolto." Any editor who can produce an article that asserts notability required by WP:N can and should do so, and should cite sources that meet WP:RS. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The content is visible here. The only assertion of notability is him being the son of a redlink. Endorse, no prejudice against recreating a decent version (suggest userspace, then contact someone to read it before moving to mainsapce). Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close. I Google-translated as much as I could from the French article. I suppose the admin can't be blamed for A7'ing (the article was paltry, and what in the hell is going to come up in a search engine for "carlos"?), but as the current article should show, the subject is quite notable. Now that the business of article creation is over, the DRV is moot. Chubbles (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the best things come up when one searches for Carlos ;-)..... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstormers-Revolution rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It was closed as no consensus, but I believe there was confusion in the article, as the original article was a duplication of one. When that was fixed, people who didn't know much about the subject voted keep because it "exists", and doubt they saw comments of the deletes. One game doesn't indicate a rivalry, and there was no sources saying it's a rivalry, and that was clearly stated in the AFD, Overturn and Delete or a Relist would be proper here. Thanks Secret ^account 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. None of the keeps came up with any logical justification as to why this article should be kept. A one-off "rivalry" that doesn't even appear to exist in the public conscience shouldn't have an article. Corvus cornix_talk 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It is in the public conscience of people from Lancaster and York.JaMikePA (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no consensus closure as there was not one. Does not need DRV discussion - if people want to redebate it, they can start a second AfD --Rumping (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. No consensus to delete was present at the (rather confused) AfD. A No Consensus close is not a bar to relisting after a few weeks which would be reasonable. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Rapid Transit in Cardiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Afd was closed as no consensus when in fact the only person opposed to deletion/renaming is the article creator, who has his own reasons for it to exist. Further background at User talk:Jerry#Bus Rapid Transit in Cardiff, Talk:List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Incorrect_No_consensus_closure_of_an_Afd

Note: The AN/I referenced is actually in archive: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive356 as the last section on the page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• Procedural objection (as closing administrator) I was not given a chance to discuss this prior to the AN, and was not informed of it before reading this delrev, which I was also not given a chance to discuss before the DELREV was actually filed. MOST of these frivolous delrevs could be avoided if users would just follow the instructions at the top of this page and discuss first. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my closure (as closing administrator) There was actually no valid deletion discussion here at all, through a full listing period and a relist.

• MickMacNee nominated the article for deletion, stating that the premise for the article is innacurate. This is a content issue, and does not speak to the notability of the subject of the article, or to whether notability is asserted, whether reliable sources exist or are cited, and whether the article contains encyclopedic content. The nomination was therefore deemed invalid and not counted as a delete !vote.
• Welshleprechaun makes a comment in objection to the definition that the nominator used for what constitutes a BRT system, to which the nom replies with a source for his (possibly POV) definition. All of this is ignored as content dispute dialogue not pertinent to the deletion debate.
• An anon says that after "a little bit of searching" he/she found little or no "relevant information", and suggests that the subject of the article does not exist, which is implausible based on the remainder of the discussion.
• Welshleprechaun again objects and asks what specific features the subject would have to have to be classified as it is in the article, and the nom replies with some subjective criteria. (again this is all content discussion not pertinent to the deletion debate).
• Bduke relisted the article at the conclusion of the original AFD period, and noted that there was little or no discussion about the deletion of the article. He suggested renaming the article to satisfy the concerns of the nom without deleting the article.
• Nom again states the article should be deleted, with the cited reason being that the article came into being under false pretenses. This was an argument that I found to be invalid, as this is nowhere discussed in the deletion policy. In addition he states that renaming the article to remove the reference to the concept he objected-to in his nom would probably result in an article that would not pass an AFD. He provided no rationale for this projected future deletion either.
• Bduke suggested two alternate names. Nom replied with what sounded like a hesitant agreement and mentioned two potential targets for said merge with some opinion of each.
• Tommy !voted "delete or redirect" (which is specifically described as a !vote to avoid in the deletion policy). He then describes why the subject of the article was not a commercial success, and then explained why the title is confusing. Again, no actual deletion discussion here.

It was clear to me that there was no consensus for delete, and whether this was a merge or no consensus outcome is splitting hairs and immaterial, as both are keep-type closures.JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you cannot split the content and deletion debates so easily, they are interconnected. How can it be that creating an article for a specific POV push (to elevate Cardiff elsewhere, as has already been the result of this closure), or creating an article with a factually innaccurate title, are not valid reasons to delete an article? The article was already nominated for speedy deletion which would presumably happen if you were to create Reasons why Cardiff rules all, again opposed only by the creator. Sure, the article could be tagged allover with citation needed, fact check, etc etc. What happens then? It should be obvious from previous discussions given above, that none would be forthcoming. MickMacNee (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but an unopposed "This is original research" looks a lot like consensus to delete to me. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Looks to me that JERRY had the right idea on the closure any way you look at it. Either the issues were all content related, and there was no reason to delete, or the issues can be taken at face value as deletion issues, in which case it appears that neither side has stronger arguements or significantly more supporters. Both of these read no consensus to me. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to find any references to support Cardiff as BRT in your recent addition to the article reflist? MickMacNee (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean this edit, where I added the reflist itself. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edits [2][3][4][5] made by Welshleprechaun on the basis of this Afd closure. If User:Jerry has any suggestion on how to resolve the resultant discrepancy of having an article called Bus Rapid Transit in Cardiff when Cardiff is not included in List of guided busways and BRT systems in the United Kingdom, or stop the edit war that will no doubt now resume, then I'm all ears. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have that sort of interest in this article. As an impartial party, I closed the debate based on the debate itself. I can not resolve this ongoing content dispute. Any editor may in good faith move an article to a more appropriate name. I say just be WP:BOLD and do it. Exploit the bold-revert-discuss cycle to it's fullest. This has worked for millions of other pages, and might just work here, too. Otherwise perhaps try WP:RFC, WP:RFPP or just about anywhere else except DELREV. DELREV can only examine the closing of XfD debates and the speedy-deletions of content. DELREV is not a formal process for solving content disputes, it is not AFD round two, and it is not a think-tank for editor collaboration. The DELREV addresses only one thing: Did User:Jerry act in good faith and close the debate according to the rough consensus or not? Everything else is just in the way. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had no interest in the article then don't take actions that cause problems for people that do. I will repeat for you (no-one else has an issue with this), the very existence of the article is central to the dispute, hence why editors with good faith and interest in the subject take the appropriate measure of listing and debating in an Afd, again this is after a speedy delete was removed. Wikipedia has too many admins who simply want to swan about making unilateral decisions and leave others to deal with the conseqeuences. At the very least you could have explained yourself in the actual debate, before giving the impression you endorsed the article content, as has happened. MickMacNee (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight... you think that an adminitrator who has no editing interest in the article should NOT close the AfD, and that an administrator who DOES have en editing interest in it SHOULD, right? And then that interested editor/administrator should ignore the fact that none of the deletion debate actually addressed any of the critieria for deletion as listed and described in the deletion policy, but should instead use his personal knowledge of the article from reading the article history and consider that and come to his own conclusion (which you hope and expect will agree weith you) and close the debate asccordingly? And moreover, as closing admin, you say that I should have first participated in the actual debate? Maybe you should propose this change to the deletion policy, as it sounds like you've thought this through quite a bit. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wishing to apply administrator action unilateraly should at least familiarise themselves with the issue at hand, namely why the article is up for deletion. Are you disowning any responsibility for the actions of Welshleprechaun after closing this Afd?, a result that anyone invovled could have predicted had they done the most basic of research behind the issues, or could have been informed of had they left a courtesy note in the debate before acting. No other admin thought the listing was such a flagrant departure from the deletion policy to comment as such, or close it themselves, only you. In short, if you aren't interested in the subject at hand enough to guide the debate in the proper direction, why get involved at all? Is there some barnstar available for timely closure of innappropriate Afds? MickMacNee (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator who participates in the debate in any way may specifically not close that debate. No other admins saw fit to close it because it was already closed. How can I have anything to do with any actions that some other editor takes? I have no idea what action you are talking about and frankly I sincerely do not care. You clearly have a fundamental lack of understanding how this process works, which explains how you have come to the conclusions and expectations that you have. Please go read the administrator guide to deletion and the actual deletion policy. What you are asking for is just plain against the rules. As for a barnstar.... check out Image:AFDstar.png, or Image:Sysop-Barnstar.png; I think one of these is what you are looking for. I would prefer the latter, if you are leaving me one. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welshleprechaun took your decision to close the Afd as a default keep, to continue with the process he started when he created the article, namely spreading the cause of Cardiff throughout WP relentlessly, irrespective of factual accuracy. This is what you might have been aware of had you asked or bothered to look. At the end of the day, if you think you're doing more for WP than me by efficiently following procedure (which I understood I was doing in listing it, to produce consensus to keep/delete/merge it) rather than thinking about content, you can have as many barnstars as you like. The statement No other admins saw fit to close it because it was already closed just makes no sense to me whatsoever. MickMacNee (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You physically exhaust me with your amazing inability to understand what I am convinced is the simplest of concepts. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should leave the admin functions alone then if you are unable to justify your actions to the satisfaction of those affected by them. Your arrogance in this matter is astounding, against someone who is just trying to correct an innacuracy in the encyclopoedia. You don't have exclusive rights to being pissed off at having to waste so much time dealing with admins like you rather than editing. MickMacNee (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help myself but to google a bit on this just now... If this was AFD round two, I'd ask if you read this BRT document where they describe improvements they made to their bus rapid transport system in Cardiff: [6]. Would you accept BRT as a source? JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you provide the right link? I only see Cardiff mentioned once, and referring to a 2001 study, backed up by this focused search [7]. The subject matter of the disputed article revolves around changes introduced as of 2006, and as was mentioned in the Afd there were plans for implementation that were abandoned, perhaps this 2001 study was part of that. Like I said, if you had any interest in this subject and had thoroughly researched the edit history you would see searches have already been made, and content from BRT.org is actually referenced by me in previous discussions. MickMacNee (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge, though I support the closure, before it can be deleted, some of the content can/should be merged with either Transport in Cardiff and/or Cardiff Bus if necessary--JForget 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: merge requires keep for GFDL attribution continuation. Merge !votes on this DELREV would therefore be effectively in support of the closure, as any editor may merge and redirect as they see fit; no DELREV is required for this action. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure - a reasonable view by the closing admin. The issue is whether the title is correct and whether a separate page is needed; both editorial not deletion issues. The actual content seems useful and encyclopaedic and there was no convincing case for the content to be deleted. I have started a merge discussion here, which seems the correct way to go. BlueValour (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure per views by the closing admin. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge, but if it's not classed as a BRT system, then it makes me question if other systems on the list of BRT systems in the UK should be there Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: merge requires keep for GFDL attribution continuation. Merge !votes on this DELREV would therefore be effectively in support of the closure, as any editor may merge and redirect as they see fit; no DELREV is required for this action. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse close it was closed as being a content dispute, so solve it as such. DGG (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alzano Virescit F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No reason to keep this page protected. It could be useful as a redirect page to the football club's actual denomination, F.C. AlzanoCene 1909. CapPixel (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt and allow creation of the redirect. Everything's kosher from my view. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JANJAN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

no consensus for deletion nor need for speedy deletion. Taku (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy overturn and reopen AfD - an article at AfD which has four keep votes shouldn't be getting speedied, unless it turns our to be a copyvio or seriously libellous. No reason not to let the AfD run its course. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reopen AfD per Iain99. Looking at the cache, I can't see why it was deleted through A7 at all, as that looks like a valid stub (but it doesn't appear that the cached version was the version deleted). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• My apologies, somehow I didn't spotted the AfD when speeding deleting. I'm restoring the article and reopening the AfD. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD1|DRV1|AfD2)

no consensus for deletion Canon (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite the fact that User:Guettarda said "take it to DRV" in his edit replacing this article with a redirect, this appears to be an editing dispute rather than a deletion dispute. You should try asking him to explain his edit as your first step. --Stormie (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Stormie's right, this looks pretty much like an editorial dispute. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was deleted after an AfD, and converted to a redirect. There was a DRV, and it was subject to a second AfD, which was also closed as a delete, and eventually salted. For some reason to redirect was unprotected and the article was recreated. As far as I can tell, any recreation should go via DRV and (assuming it it approved) a fresh AfD. Guettarda (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha, I see my mistake, based on JzG's closing comment of the second AfD, I thought he'd closed it as "no consensus". But checking the logs I see that it was a somewhat unclearly worded "delete" close. Yes, clearly this is an issue for DRV. --Stormie (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, easy mistake. Withdrawing comment as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Guettarda that this is not an editorial dispute, it is a policy issue. The prior two AfDs were closed contrary to policy. We therefore need a DRV to get a new AfD that probably will be handled correctly, since as WP has matured policy has been more uniformly adhered to. Canon (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the closer for the first AFD, please, please tell me what changed from those two delete AFDs. Thanks Secret ^account 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was rewritten. Canon (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Checking the dif, it looks the same. Recreation with an infobox added is still recreation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • To clarify, the article was rewritten after the first AfD and DRV that Jaranda/Secret closed. The second AfD was closed without consensus. Canon (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - the second AfD was nominated on 21 November 2006 and then closed the following day by the nominating admin which seems procedurally incorrect. There are a number of questions to be answered. In addition to whether the society is sufficiently notable for its own page, if not then there is also the question of the merge target since the key content is also at Ronald K. Hoeflin. All in all, a fresh discussion is appropriate. BlueValour (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redelete as G4 I'm not even sure what we're discussing here, the old article was restored and an infobox was added, so the first AfD still holds. No new info added here, so the DRV1 ruling still stands as well. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a result of the first AfD and DRV the article was extensively rewritten, providing several primary and secondary sources, which is allowed according to policy. The second AfD was closed contrary to policy, as User:BlueValour points out. Canon (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn 2nd AFD that's simply not an acceptable close of an AFD... closures should be by a relatively unbiased party, not the most biased parties available. --W.marsh 00:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Giuliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

NOTE: The closing of this AFD was previosly endorsed at a previous DELREV

UNDELETE_information not taken into account, consensus not full CCorward (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to reopen the debate on the deletion of this article. Although the issue has been debated twice, I think there was no conseus, and the decision to delete and endorse the deletion was based on at least three points which I think I can prove are factually correct.

• Those in favour of the deletion question the subect's status as a Guinness World Record holder. Instead of questioning, why not research it ? If anyone has the 2006 edition, he is on page 126 of the UK edition. I can email it or upload it if someone wants its. I think being a Guinness Record holder is already sufficient for inclusion.
• Those in favour of the deletion questioned the notability of the subject as an author, citing that there are only two books which are self-published materials, and no independent reviews. This is incorrect: there are several online reviws of his book "El Caso CEA" available online, two of which were referenced in the article - one by Miami's major Spanish paper El Nuevo Herald, and one by Johns Hopkins University. On the subject of Cuba at least, he is a notable author.
• Finally, those in favour of the deletion questioned his notability as a UN official. This is very strange, as his status as a UN official was not even mentioned in the article ! To me, this seems like animosity, i.e. someone did research outside the article to find out more about the subject, and determine that facts not mentioned in the article are not notable. Weird ! This does not seem due process to me.

PS: Apologies for the late reaction. I don't have time to use Wikipedia every day unfortunately. And apologies in advance for late replies to this debate. --CCorwardCCorward (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional point: I see that the DELREV contained very little about the subject, and lots of arguments about the users involved, with almost 'fights' breaking out among them about definitions and process, and not about the subject. I therefore think that the DELREV did not follow due process and has to be repeated, in direct consideration of the three points above.

--CCorwardCCorward (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. Already endorsed and nom brings up no good arguements to reconsider. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closure (AGAIN) (as closing administrator) No new arguments presented regarding the close of the AFD that warrant overturning consensus in two processes. I would have no objection to the creation of a new article that was encyclopedic, NPOV, met N with V & RS. I would suggest create such an article in user space first and ask an administrator to cross-namespace move it after review. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Suggest use of reliable source noticeboard to vet sources. Wjhonson (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick rebate Three points:

1. I do think I bring new elements - please do read: First, I dismiss the claim that the Guinness entry may be untrue, which was one of the reasons for the deletion. Second, I claim that there are third-party reviews about his books, and therefore they are not just self-published sources, which again was one of the reasons for the deletion. I can prove both claims. Thirdly, I question whether due process was applied, since there were objections about his status as a UN official when this status was not mentioned in the article at all ! 2. In reply to Wjhonson, fully agree. Please let me know where I can upload the Guinness page or post links etc. to prove the claims. 3. I also like Jerry's proposal, which I think is fair and balanced. Jerry, could you just let me know how I create an article in user space ? you mean my userspace ? and more important, could you send me the deleted article preferably in ASCII format so i dont have to start from scratch in creating a new article ?. The big advantage of thsi approach is that, if Jerry then approves it, hopefully it won't be disputed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCorward (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I will be more than happy to provide a copy of the deleted article. I will put it at the userspace page User:CCorward/Maurizio Giuliano. To do this, I will undelete the original, move it to preserve the GFDL contribution history, remove the deletion notice, and delete the resulting mainspace redirects. Please do not move this back yourself to mainspace without administrator review. Please also withdraw this DELREV so it can be closed without adding an overturn to my record. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]